for sojourners and exiles, dearly beloved (1 Pet. 2:11)

Horatius Bonar on ‘Faith’

These are some great quotes on the nature of faith by Horatius Bonar. (HT: Shane Lems)

“Faith may seem a slight thing to some; and they may wonder how salvation can flow from [simply] believing. Hence they try to magnify it, to adore it, to add to it, in order that it may appear some great thing, something worthy of having salvation as its reward. In doing so, they are actually transforming faith into a work, and introducing salvation by works under the name of faith. They show that they understand neither the nature nor the office of faith.”

“Faith saves, simply by handing us over to the Savior. It saves, not on account of the good works which flow from it; not on account of the love which kindles it; not on account of the repentance which it produces; but solely because it connects us with the Saving One. Its saving efficacy does not lie in its connection with [our] righteousness and holiness, but entirely in its connection with the Righteous and Holy One.”

Related

4 Responses

You are developing a wonderful and important collection of the greats on justification by faith alone. Keep up the good work! Bonar sounds as if he were alive today and speaking to the immediate issues closing in on truth and threatening to unhinge the biblical and thus Reformed doctrine of sola fide.

Doug, thanks for your comments on here. Yeah, I agree. It appears to me (from hearing some Geerhardus Vos) that what we’re observing is partly the result and influence of the discipline of ‘Biblical Theology’ in the hands of the ungodly. He says,

“It must be admitted, however, that not everything passing under the name of Biblical Theology satisfies the requirements of this definition. From the end of the preceding century, when our science first appears as distinct from Dogmatic Theology, until now, she has stood under the spell of un-Biblical principles. Her very birth took place under an evil star. It was the spirit of Rationalism which first led to distinguishing in the contents of the Scriptures between what was purely human, individual, local, temporal-in a word, conditioned by the subjectivity of the writers-and what was eternally valid, divine truth. The latter, of course, was identified with the teachings of the shallow Rationalism of that period. Thus, Biblical Theology, which can only rest on the basis of revelation, began with a denial of this basis; and a science, whose task it is to set forth the historic principles of revelation, was trained up in a school notorious for its lack of historic sense.” – Vos from his inaugural address at Princeton, found here: http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/gvbiblical.htm

Not that that explains everything, but it does identify certain motives of thought.

Thus, to me, in surveying the battle field, it appears there are many swards drawn (the word) — and yet they’re all wielded (many of them) by dark knights.

Do you see many (still living folks I mean!) speaking in these terms Brenden? That is using terminology that points us to our being “in Him” as the efficacious means by which all other points of the doctrinal compass (election, new birth, justification, sanctification, adoption, glorification, etc) come to us as truth in an experimental sense?

Andy, I’m not sure. Do you mean ‘experiential’ or ‘experimental’? It does seem to me that many are using the terminology of “in Christ” but not in a definitive sense but more in a progressive sense. Thus, Wright uses this terminology I think, as do others (I’m thinking of Gaffin). But the center of gravity (so to speak) is shifted from the Crucifixion to the Resurrection and Ascension. Thus, for example, our justification (as well as every other benefit of union with Christ) hangs not upon the work accomplished at the cross, so much as the works “being done” in us who walk by the Spirit (in union). Thus the emphasis is on infused, Spirit-wrought, righteousness as the result of our union with Christ in newness of life, rather than on the imputed righteousness of Christ, as a result of his Obedience onto death. I see this as the central chord running as a dividing line between the classical reformed, protestant view, and the contemporary efforts of revisers.

And by doing this, one sees, that you blur sanctification with justification, works with grace.

In all these views it seems there is an effort to take either eschatology or ecclesiology and swallow up soteriology.